Finding a common ground – a conversation with Dr. James Hansen on nuclear power

” If they don’t, the changing demographics will sink them, and we will all suffer under a screwed up energy system.”
Yes Dr. Hansen, clearly you’ve been so good at predictions how could anyone possibly believe another one from you.

Of course “carbon” taxes would have to come first. That’s the only way they could make nuclear economically feasible, i.e. by punishing coal especially, but also NG.
Hansen envisions killing coal and building nuclear plants, which would drive energy prices sky high.

Nuclear power is good if done properly.
The whole “carbon free” aspect is bogus.

I commend Eric Worrall on his initiative.
It’s pleasant to discover a like-minded individual who shares my judgements, specifically those in favour of nuclear power and against fake markets.
As a youth I was a science fiction enthusiast, and in favour of nuclear power. I changed my stance upon reading Ralph Nader’s “The Menace of Atomic Energy.” The part that particularly swayed me was Nader’s account of three scientists who resigned from the nuclear industry in protest against it’s dangers. That story turned out to be a lie.
I later read the late Dr Petr Beckmann’s marvelous book “The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear.” Partisan as a Green’s publication, it’s nevertheless rational as well. In it, he puts many of Nader’s misleading claims in context. I was particularly impressed by the fact that the three resigners were all converts to a religious cult that opposed plutonium as the devil’s work ‘because it is not found in God’s nature.’ This is a fact that Nader could not have helped but know. nevertheless he intentionally concealed it. Beckmann’s arguments are as valid today as the day he wrote them.
Only Dr Hansen can truly say what motivates his weasel-worded rejection. After all, this proposal would contribute to the world adopting a policy initiative that would in his judgement ‘save the world’. But am I wrong to think it’s arrogance? That he’d rather see the world go to hell than co-operate with Anthony Watts on anything at all? Perhaps I am wrong. But it definitely looks that way.

Here’s a three-part solution I endorse, spelled out in a book called “Prescription for the Planet: The Painless Remedy for Our Energy & Environmental Crises,” whose details are outlined in the first reader-review, by G. Meyerson:
This book is a must read for people who want to be informed about our worsening energy and ecology crisis. Before I read this book, I was opposed to nuclear power for the usual reasons: weapons proliferation and the waste problem. But also because I had read that in fact nuclear power was not as clean as advertised nor as cost competitive as advertised and was, moreover, not a renewable form of energy, as it depends upon depleting stocks of uranium, which would become an especially acute problem in the event of “a nuclear renaissance.”
Before I read this book, I was also of the opinion that growth economies (meaning for now global capitalism) were in the process of becoming unsustainable, that, as a consequence, our global economy would itself unravel due to increasing energy costs and the inability of renewable technologies genuinely and humanely to solve the global transport problem of finding real replacements for the billions of gallons of gasoline consumed by the global economy, and the billions more gallons required to fuel the growth imperative. I was thus attracted to the most egalitarian versions of Richard Heinberg’s power down/relocalization thesis.
Blees’ book has turned many of my assumptions upside down and so anyone who shares these assumptions needs to read this book and come to terms with the implications of Blees’ excellent arguments. To wit: the nuclear power provided by Integral Fast Reactors (IFR) can provide clean, safe and for all practical purposes renewable power for a growing economy provided this power is properly regulated (I’ll return to this issue below). The transportation problems can be solved by burning boron as fuel (a 100% recyclable resource) and the waste problem inevitably caused by exponential growth can be at least partially solved by fully recycling all waste in plasma converters, which themselves can provide both significant power (the heat from these converters can turn a turbine to generate electricity) and important products: non toxic vitrified slag (which Blees notes can be used to refurbish ocean reefs), rock wool (to be used to insulate our houses–it is superior to fiber glass or cellulose) and clean syngas, which can assume the role played by petroleum in the production of products beyond fuel itself. Blees’s discussion of how these three elements of a new energy economy can be introduced and integrated is detailed and convincing. Other forms of renewable energy can play a significant role also, though it is his argument that only IFRs can deal with the awesome scale problems of powering a global economy which would still need to grow. Tom’s critique of biofuels is devastating and in line with the excellent critiques proferred by both the powerdown people and the red greens (John Bellamy Foster, Fred Magdoff); his critique of the “hydrogen economy” is also devastating (similar to critiques by Joseph Romm or David Strahan); his critique of a solar grand plan must be paid heed by solar enthusiasts of various political stripes.
The heart of this book, though, really resides with the plausibility of the IFR. His central argument is that these reactors can solve the principal problems plaguing other forms of nuclear power. It handles the nuclear waste problem by eating it to produce power: The nuclear waste would fire up the IFRs and our stocks of depleted uranium alone would keep the reactors going for a couple hundred years (factoring in substantial economic growth) due to the stunning efficiency of these reactors, an efficiency enabled by the fact that “a fast reactor can burn up virtually all of the uranium in the ore,” not just one percent of the ore as in thermal reactors. This means no uranium mining and milling for hundreds of years.
The plutonium bred by the reactor will be fed back into it to produce more energy and cannot be weaponized due to the different pyroprocessing that occurs in the IFR reactor. In this process, plutonium is not isolated, a prerequisite to its weaponization. The IFR breeders can produce enough nonweaponizable plutonium to start up another IFR in seven years. Moreover, these reactors can be produced quickly (100 per year starting in 2015, with the goal of building 3500 by 2050)), according to Blees, with improvements in modular design, which would facilitate standardization, thus bringing down cost and construction lead time.
Importantly, nuclear accidents would be made virtually impossible due to the integration of “passive” safety features in the reactors, which rely on “the inherent physical properties of the reactor’s components to shut it down.” (129)
………………..
Still, if such a new energy regime as Blees proposes can solve the climate crisis, this is not to say, in my opinion, that a growth regime is fully compatible with a healthy planet and thus a healthy humanity. There are other resources crucial to us–the world’s soils, forests and oceans come to mind–that a constantly expanding global economy can destroy even if we recycle all the world’s garbage and stop global warming.“
Here’s the Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/Prescription-Planet-Painless-Remedy-Environmental/dp/1419655825/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236568501&sr=1-1